The idea is not new; several studies over the past 10 years have found a scientific consensus on climate change. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science
at Harvard University, in 2004 found that 75 percent of published studies supported anthropogenic global warming. Since then, six other studies have
been published with widespread media attention.[/ex]

Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

Though I believe that humans do play a roll in this, but not as big as Al Carbon Tax Gore would like us to believe. One area that I do not see much
discussion on is we were in a mini ice age up until the early/mid 1800s. This was most likely started as far back as 1200s with 4 massive volcanic
eruptions followed by reduce solar activity and ocean currents. All this leads me to believe we just do not know what normal is. When we look back at
the colonization of America and even the revolutionary war there was some real frozen hell on earth examples of just how cold it was in the near past,
so how much humans are effecting all this and how much is just something we have little influence over is just about anyone's guess. We do know that
volcanoes are like anti-global warming, so I also wonder how much Mount Pinatubo has played into all of this too in delaying a warming effect that
could be mostly natural.

Sure, why not?
Your article includes some discussion of the Cook paper.
If you want to talk about the Cook paper lol, lets do that.
You'd have to read his whole paper to understand it.
Here's I'll help you along, lets have a look at some of his supporting data.

The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65
papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of
it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert
papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another
defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible
headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important
to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that
take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.

Try this simple experiment. Place a paper towel on a work surface. Add water a drop at a time. At first the paper will absorb every drop of
water. Eventually, though, there must come a time when the paper is so loaded with water that any excess is not absorbed. This illustrates a
fundamental principle of all systems:

Now that post is the perhaps the best summation of the situation we could hope to read. Thanks for your contribution to this thread. Knuckleheads
abound and the comments earlier about Kashai's apparent emotional reaction are spot on IMHO. You can't make this stuff up with the emotional reactions
these days from people who either don't want to get it or they are so thoroughly brainwashed/indoctrinated into hating CO2.

I have shared some good ideas to replace oil and I get crickets or we used to get H2 takes more energy than you can get out, laws of energy blah blah
blah. I offered the Solar panel idea to crack H2O like they use on the ISS years back to one famous poster here on ATS who is good in Astrophysics
discussions and that one even was fighting that idea. I offer nuclear ideas and they balk at that too. I point out that something is holding this back
but they want examples of one working commercially when I am stating it is being held back by the people who can build them.

It might be they hate rich people getting wealthy from fossil fuel or is it they really hate humanity and can't get away with articulating that
point?

I don't hate rich people but I do not like greedy liars pitching an idea as fact that at bare minimum is in very much doubt. A couple of the normal
ATS truth deniers didn't make it this time. I wonder why that is because they just know my 20 papers suck? When the thread provides example after
example of the evidence these same people ask 'where is your data" then provide nothing other than motivation to continue with more evidence.

Ostriches at least just hide their head in the sand fairly noiselessly. These guys in the "science" rally left a mess in DC last weekend like was
predicted they would. You would think if they are really about preserving the environment they would be setting an example that is worthy of
following!!

Tell you what: let's put you in a sealed box. After a while, you will have metabolized all the oxygen in the box, leaving you with nothing but
nitrogen and carbon dioxide to breathe. Don't worry, "carbon dioxide simply can't be a pollutant." What you mean to say is that in a properly
functioning planetary ecosystem, plants and animals balance one another's metabolic processes to maintain environmental homeostasis. The question is:
are human activities disrupting this homeostasis? The evidence suggests it is.

As for the Sun driving climate, that is self evident. The problem is that atmospheres are complex, even chaotic in the sense that very small changes
in variables can have disproportionately large effects. "Butterfly wings" ring a bell?

Both the amount of insolation and mix of atmospheric gases have varied widely over time. As
a planetary ecosystem, these changes have been irrelevant. Ice ages come and go; sea level rises and recedes. Species adapt or go extinct. There's the
problem: human beings need to adapt to climate change or go extinct.

In the past, the human species was fairly mobile. Their dwellings, once they had them, were not necessarily permanent. If the body of water they chose
to dwell near, and humans tend to dwell near the water, either flooded or receded, they could literally pull up stakes and move to adjust to the new
situation. Manhattan, London, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and all the other centers of human population are not that mobile.

Here is the question: should humanity prepare to abandon its cities, invest in making them survivable in the face of inevitable environmental change,
or attempt to control the factors that drive environmental change? Of the factors driving change, which are the ones humans can control, and which
pose the least danger of making things worse?

Should we adapt? Yes, we should. The Sun and Star do what they want. Puny humans would be like a speck on a speck.

I am guessing you have seen those ancient geological formations with fish bones up to 2 miles above current sea level. They shouldn't be there as
there is no water. Of course the Earth had an event that lurched the old seabed upward. Conversely there have been ancient cities found well under the
water. This stuff has been going on for millennia and you think we have impacted that apparently. You can't have it both ways. Either the Earth Cycles
exist or they don't. Shilling for taxation to correct a problem that truly is more easily fixable by individual actions in your life than by claiming
the exhaust we put out due to evolution is being hurt by releasing the naturally occurring molecule CO2. You guys are like snapping turtles. They
won't let go until lightening strikes them is the joke around my area.

So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has
stayed in the atmosphere. Eventually, the land and oceans will take up most of the extra carbon dioxide

originally posted by: garbageface
It's my thought, since climate changes have existed beyond the past 50 years and weren't political issues. Propaganda is thick these days. Disagreeing
with somebody that carbon is the cause of global warming just gets a "you have no idea what you're talking about, you're not a scientist" replies,
even though the "evidence" that it is carbon caused is weak at best.

And no, I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just not sold that carbon is the culprit.

Carbon Dioxide simply can't be a pollutant, we can show way more carbon that we have now was in the atmosphere and the plants thrived and so did
animal life. The most diverse time of animals was when CO2 was perhaps 10 times or more what it is today.

The surface of the earth had multiple times more photosynthesizing organisms that were able to recycle the carbon in the atmosphere than it does now.
Do you accept that we currently have an earth that is unable to recycle the carbon in the same way and that leads to more remaining in the atmosphere?

Mythbusters did a good faith effort but it is a "fail" for me and here is why.

The experiment doesn't take into account that the extra molecules introduced into the experimental chamber/box incrementally bring extra energy into
the box if you use any gas at all whereas a solid has a lot less energy of motion (think friction of the gas molecules colliding in the box) but way
more kinetic potential. Earth is not closed totally as the box likely was but we have these molecules already on the planet. We are just freeing the
CO2 from the wood, coal, oil or animal fats not introducing them from outside the experiment. That we change them from solids does indeed release
energy to the system. So it won't matter what the solid to gas is, energy is being shared with the system that was at rest with very little
friction.

The definition of absolute zero we are taught/teach in Physical Chemistry is the lack of movement of particles

That is, at 0 degrees Kelvin or -459.7 degrees Celsius nothing is moving. Therefore gases by definition are in a higher state of movement than
solids. This experiment is nice Houdini play in the end because they didn't insert a similar volume of another comparable, say noble gas, as one of
the controls. Noble gasses after friction, are neutral in interaction with other atoms essentially and CO2/CH4 will interact so Helium would have been
a good one to add to the list of control boxes.

They need a redo but I suspect that won't happen. Mythbuster's tend to see what they want sometimes while bringing enough truth to the table it clouds
the issue a bit.I will agree, sometime they would be a good source since, sometimes they are doing it right. But not this time. Thanks for your
contribution it was thoughtful.

originally posted by: garbageface
It's my thought, since climate changes have existed beyond the past 50 years and weren't political issues. Propaganda is thick these days. Disagreeing
with somebody that carbon is the cause of global warming just gets a "you have no idea what you're talking about, you're not a scientist" replies,
even though the "evidence" that it is carbon caused is weak at best.

And no, I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just not sold that carbon is the culprit.

Carbon Dioxide simply can't be a pollutant, we can show way more carbon that we have now was in the atmosphere and the plants thrived and so did
animal life. The most diverse time of animals was when CO2 was perhaps 10 times or more what it is today.

The surface of the earth had multiple times more photosynthesizing organisms that were able to recycle the carbon in the atmosphere than it does now.
Do you accept that we currently have an earth that is unable to recycle the carbon in the same way and that leads to more remaining in the
atmosphere?

I honestly don't believe Earth has less Photosynthesizing ability now, in fact I believe it has more. An interesting discussion would be to study what
has been happening with extra planetary incursions of debris, the Earth is growing, expanding a little every day. There is more surface area if this
is true. We have reforested the US and greatly preserved places like the Appalachian chain for instance.

There are large swatches of Earth that are still totally uninhabited. You would be surprised at how empty the land is of people from Virginia, the
Carolina's and all the way to the Mississippi River even as we have been a growing population on this continent for hundreds of years. Russia and
China have massive open lands that dwarf ours in the US. I think we are not ready to say photosynthesis is minimizing but I could be wrong.

Please find a way to summarise, using whatever knowledge you want gained from the 20 papers, your exact belief in the reason for recent and ongoing
climate change.

You have argued against the idea of man-made carbon release being responsible and suggested that the sun is responsible. But what you haven't done it
answered Phage's earlier question about what evidence you use to suggest a correlation between the sun and climate change.

Is the sun warming or cooling the earth? Why do you believe this? Do you not believe that carbon released by human activity is warming the earth?

Please find a way to summarise, using whatever knowledge you want gained from the 20 papers, your exact belief in the reason for recent and ongoing
climate change.

You have argued against the idea of man-made carbon release being responsible and suggested that the sun is responsible. But what you haven't done it
answered Phage's earlier question about what evidence you use to suggest a correlation between the sun and climate change.

Is the sun warming or cooling the earth? Why do you believe this? Do you not believe that carbon released by human activity is warming the earth?

Summary

Sun is the problem. CO2 is not... People are going to suffer because greedy people want you to believe the opposite of this. That is it. I provided
about 25 papers in this thread to attempt to prove my theory.

ETA

We have MSM cramming the lie down our throats and a lot of gullible people are going to suffer in the end if we don't focus on the real problems.
Lead, Arsenic, Long chain man made hydrocarbons for pesticides, sewage etc are the real pollution.

New findings suggest the rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere has plateaued in recent years because Earth’s vegetation is grabbing
more carbon from the air than in previous decades.

That’s the conclusion of a multi-institutional study led by a scientist from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(Berkeley Lab). It’s based on extensive ground and atmospheric observations of CO2, satellite measurements of vegetation, and computer modeling. The
research is published online Nov. 8 in the journal Nature Communications.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.